When politics stops being "low," the middle class-fueled "progressivism" kicks in

Theodore's respectable and well-to-do New York-based Dutch family was aghast when, as a young man, he told them that he wanted to go into politics. But he was swept up in an emerging progressive age that was directly fueled by America's rising middle class.

India is at the same point now.

Great quote today in NYT:

"We've been told since our childhoods, 'Politics is bad, don't get into politics.' But the point is that somebody has to clean it up. We can't just scold people."

PARTHO NAG, on a new activism among the middle class in India.

Politics considered bad. Somebody has to clean it up.

There's your progressive impulse in a nutshell.

Wikistrat's "The World According to Tom Barnett" 2011 brief, Part 6 (Flow of Security)

In this section I cover the symmetricization of the Long War, nuclear proliferation (and the lack thereof), how America shaped this world with its grand strategy, and who the key superpowers will be in the post-2030 landscape.

WPR's The New Rules: Turkey's Long Game in the Cyprus Gas Dispute

"Resource wars" enthusiasts worldwide have a new -- and unexpected -- poster child:"zero problems with neighbors" Turkey. The Turkish government of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan is beside itself over Israel's recent moves to cooperate with Cyprus on surveying its Eastern Mediterranean seabed for possible natural gas deposits thought to be lying adjacent to the reserves discovered last year off the coast of Haifa.

Read the entire column at World Politics Review.

The real leading indicator of China's power

Apologies for no post for two days. I was in DC and busy.

FT story here on how the demographics are already playing out in China: fewer workers entering the work force can be choosier and more demanding on wages. That sends wages skyrocketing in China along the coast. Companies have two choices: go inland for cheaper Chinese labor - but then accept the higher transpo costs, or they go to neighboring states - all of which are just now on the cusp on a very big and long demographic dividend that will make their labor cheaper than China's from here on out. Those neighbors are basically all of Southeast Asia and especially India and Bangladesh.

So the subheader here says it all: "Demographcis and Beijing policy on workers' pay mean manufacturing is relocating in Asia."

Won't change a whole lot about America's trade deficit with Asia. It was large when "factory Asia" was just Japan and South Korea and ASEAN, and it got bigger when China cleverly inserted itself at the top of that assembling chain and consolidated the region's trade suprlus with America into its massive foreign currency holdings. And it won't go away when others displace China increasingly.

But it does mean that China's days of "inexhaustible" cheap labor are already ending.

And it means that India's eclipsing of China as the next big thing - to include all the soft power that goes with that (which will be greater for democratic India than authoritarian China) - has already begun.

WPR's The New Rules: U.S. Must Not Close the Door on Nuclear Energy

Prior to the Fukushima nuclear power plant disaster in Japan, the nuclear energy industry was poised for a global expansion of unprecedented size. Proponents of nuclear energy still see a bright future in a world where electrical demand grows hand in hand with a burgeoning global middle class and everybody wants to reduce CO2 emissions. But vociferous industry opponents now claim nuclear power has been dealt a Chernobyl-like deathblow. Unsurprisingly, most pessimists are found in the advanced West -- witness Germany's decision to abandon nuclear power -- while most optimists are found in emerging economies such as China and India.

Read the entire post at World Politics Review.

WPR's The New Rules: The Race for Global Leadership in the Age of Anger

Ian Bremmer, the founder and head of Eurasia Group (for which I work as an analyst), has argued that we are living in a "G-Zero" world, or one in which there is no genuine great-power leadership. From the perspective of political science, it is hard to disagree, as anyone reading a newspaper these days can attest. Still, the historian in me says this situation cannot last for too long. My reasoning here has nothing to do with the global correlation of military force, since thanks to globalization's emerging middle class, "butter" will inevitably emerge as the winner over "guns." 

Read the entire column at World Politics Review.

Mr. Dalit Comes to Class

FT story on new Bollywood film depicting "untouchables" and the discrimination they suffer. The film is already banned in three Indian states out of fear of inciting social unrest.

Ask yourself, what period of US history does this remind you of?

Fair dynamic comparison, although here the pushback comes more from dalit politicians and those in favor of their rights.  Why? Film focuses on quota system for dalits/untouchables set up at time of independence. Upper castes say film makes them look bad, but dalits say film denigrates positive impact of quota system - aka, India's version of affirmative action. 

What I remember from visiting India: it seemed like the taller you were and lighter your skin, the more likely you were more powerful and thus from a higher class.  Conversely, lower caste people seemed shorter (poorer diet) and darker.  So when I mixed with elites, I looked them in the eye, but when I moved among ordinary people, I felt like a frickin' giant. The dichotomy rather stunned me.

If you mention that observation, you tend to get a strong response from Indians who find any comparison to racism in the West to be completely offbase. I'm not sure what you call it, but it strikes me as a deep legacy of discrimination based on birth (meaning you can't change who you are no matter what, which smacks of that "one drop of blood" logic) and thus is reasonably compared to racism elsewhere in the world, despite its "sophisticated" and multivariate application.

Point of post: rising India, like rising China, is racing through a lot of history and "phases" that US went through a much more leisurely pace.  That's incredibly hard but facinating to watch.

Blurb on film only hints at controversy (from Rotten Tomatoes), but understand that Prabhakar has a special space for dalits in his school and that Kumar, who is in love with Prabhakar's daughter, is himself a dalit. This is classic Bollywood (father-daughter conflict over undesirable match) with the twist that here the father is the perceived liberal:

Aarakshan is the story of Prabhakar Anand (Amitabh Bachchan), the legendary idealistic principal of a college that he has single-handedly turned into the state's best. It is the story of his loyal disciple, Deepak Kumar (Saif Ali Khan) who will do anything for his Sir. Of Deepak's love for Prabhakar's daughter, Poorbi (Deepika Padukone), of his friendship with Sushant (Prateik). It is the story of their love, their lively friendship, their zest for life, and of their dreams for the future. Centered on one of the most controversial issues of recent years, with the Supreme Court's order on reservation, the story suddenly becomes a rollercoaster ride of high drama, conflict, and rebellion, which tests their love and friendship for one another, and their loyalty to Prabhakar Anand.

Film is already in US, probably because Bachchan is the Cary Grant of Indian cinema. Done about 300k, so art-house limited.

Be interested if anyone has seen it and can provide impressions.

Leading indicator of India eventually surpassing China as globalization's factory floor

Fabulous Economist story entitled, "India's Guangdong."

Short explanation from me b/c fighting ear infection:

Demographic dividend huge in India, and will stretch deep into mid-century.  China's, by comparison, had heyday from 1980-2010 and now starts slow decline.  China, for example, loses about 1/3 of labor entering workforce over next decade - decline finally set in motion by one-child policy.  India surpasses China in labor around 2030, and has 50% more by 2050.  SE Asia on similar trajectory.

All comes to say: China, as it moves up value chain (all those Foxconn robots!), exports jobs to India and SE Asia - inevitably.  Good and bad thing for China, just like it's been good and bad for US last 30 years.

As I watch this, I keep saying to myself: where is the leading indicator of how India actually gets around to seriously industrializing?

That's why this article so cool:  says Gujarat is the state to watch.  It's India's Guangdong.

So stay tuned.

WPR's The New Rules: The New World Order-After-Next

There is no faster route to second-tier great power status than for an actual or aspiring superpower to fight a crippling conflict with another country from those same ranks. Moreover, if history is any guide, the glass ceiling that results is a permanent one: This was the fate of imperial Britain, imperial Japan and Germany -- both imperial and Nazi -- in the first half of the 20th century, and the same was true for Soviet Russia in the second half of the century, despite Moscow's conflict with the West being a cold one. The lesson is an important one for Washington, Beijing and New Delhi to keep in mind in the years ahead, given that the two most likely dyads for major war in the 21st century are America-China and China-India. 

Read the entire column at World Politics Review.

WPR's The New Rules: A Post-NATO Europe Should Look East

Among the mutual recriminations ringing out between the U.S. and Europe regarding NATO's already stressed-out intervention in Libya, we have seen the usual raft of analyses regarding that military alliance's utility -- or lack thereof. As someone who has argued for close to a decade now that America will inevitably find that China, India and other rising powers make better and more appropriate allies for managing this world, I don't find such arguments surprising. You don't have to be a genius to do the math: Our primary allies aren't having enough babies and have chosen to shrink their defense budgets, while rising powers build up their forces and increasingly flex their muscles. In terms of future superpowers, beyond the "CIA" trio -- China, India and America -- nobody else is worth mentioning.

Read the entire column at World Politics Review.

Time's Battleland: Future grand strategists speak: Why US withdrawal from Afghanistan would stabilize Pakistan

In my continuing role as Head Judge  for the online strategy community Wikistrat's month-long International Grand Strategy Competition featuring roughly 30 teams from top-flight universities and think tanks around the world, I get to peruse all manner of provocative thought from some of tomorrow's best and brightest thinkers.  And yeah, full disclosure, I get paid to judge as the firm's chief analyst.

Well, this last week, our participating teams drew up elaborate national trajectories and regional trajectories for their 13 countries (Brazil, China, EU, India, Iran, Israel, Japan, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, South Africa, Turkey and US), and the two entries that really jumped out at me in their immediate dueling were the two Pakistani teams populated with grad students from Claremont Graduate University (CA) and Yale (CT).  Let me tell you why.

Read the entire post at Time's Battleland.

Time's Battleland: "The CIA-After-Next: Who's Gonna Run This World"

Outgoing Defense Secretary Robert Gates has done a lot of good things over his tenure:  he carved out a bureaucratic space for the small-wars crowd (Army, Marines, SOF) and he engineered the Navy-Air Force Full Employment Act (otherwise known as the AirSea Battle Concept) to keep the rest of the Building happy; he was tough enough on the budget but likewise hard enough to make sure he got more for the frontline troops.  All in all, I can't fault him on anything major. He was just what we needed after Rumsfeld.

Now he does us the final favor of speaking the truth about our European allies and a relationship that has clearly run its historic course.  I have been writing about needing to shift from West to East for almost a decade ("Forget Europe:  How About These Allies?" 11 April 2004, WAPO; "The Chinese Are Our Friends," November 2005, Esquire), and for years my suggestion that our future strategic partnerships will be with India and China instead of the UK and the rest of NATO were greeted with wide-eyed shock by briefing audiences.  But the global financial crisis opened a lot of eyes.

Read the entire post at Time's Battleland.

Time's Battleland: "US bases in Afghanistan for decades?"

Waiting on the Obama speech explaining this one.

Guardian piece Monday predicts that current US-Afghan talks will cement a very long-term deal on presence [hat tip to World Politics Review Media Roundup].

American and Afghan officials are locked in increasingly acrimonious secret talks about a long-term security agreement which is likely to see US troops, spies and air power based in the troubled country for decades. [italics mine]

This is described officially as a "strategic partnership," but nobody in their right mind would describe it as such. It's a dependency - pure and simple. The longer we stay, the more we'll infantilize the system. Ten years in and virtually everything we've set about to create is still described as "fragile" - meaning it collapses and disappears the minute we pull out.

Read the entire post at Time's Battleland.

WPR's The New Rules: Four Options for Redefining the Long War

There is a profound sense of completion to be found in America's elimination of Osama bin Laden, and the circumstances surrounding his death certainly fit this frontier nation's historical habit of mounting major military operations to capture or kill super-empowered bad actors. Operation Geronimo, like most notable U.S. overseas interventions of the past quarter-century, boiled down to eliminating the one man we absolutely felt we needed to get to declare victory. Now we have the opportunity to redefine this "long war" to America's most immediate advantage. I spot four basic options, each with their own attractions and distractions.

Read the entire column at World Politics Review.

WPR's The New Rules: Long-Term U.S. Presence in Afghanistan a Mistake

The Obama administration has begun talks with Afghanistan designed to quell the Karzai government's fears about being abandoned by the West come 2014. Those talks are said to involve negotiations for long-term basing of U.S. troops involved in training Afghan security forces and supporting future counterterrorism operations. This can be seen as a realistic course of action, given our continuing lack of success in nation-building there, as well as our inability -- although perhaps unwillingness is a better term -- to erect some regional security architecture that might replace our presence. But there are good reasons to question this course.

Read the entire column at World Politics Review.

WPR's The New Rules: Strategic Balancing vs. Global Development

The World Bank's 2011 World Development Report is out, and this year's version highlights the interplay between "conflict, security, and development." That's a welcome theme to someone who's spent the last decade describing how globalization's spreading connectivity and rules have rendered certain regions stable, while their absence has condemned others to perpetual strife. But although the growing international awareness of these crosscutting issues is long overdue, the report ultimately disappoints by focusing only on the available tools with which great powers might collaborate on these stubborn problems, while ignoring the motivations that prevent them from doing so. 

Read the entire column at World Politics Review.

WPR's The New Rules: U.S. Global Role Depends on Hard Fiscal Choices

Much of the global perception of America's long-term decline as the world's sole surviving superpower is in fact driven by our fiscal decline. That's why I was disturbed to hear Democrats so quickly dismiss GOP Sen. Paul Ryan's bold, if flawed, federal budget proposal on the grounds that it would "end Medicare as we know it."  Frankly, arresting our decline means ending a lot of things "as we know them." That's simply what being on an unsustainable path forces you to do.

Read the entire column at World Politics Review.

India's Achilles heel: the Gandhian/Jeffersonian ideal

versus

Gandhi reified the village as the center of Indian life.  There you find the ones left behind in the rapture that is globalization's narrow advance into "shining India."  Gandhi is the modern Jefferson, and he shows you just how wrong that guy was.

Western investors may take eager note of India’s economic growth rate of nearly 9 percent a year. But that statistic rings hollow in India’s vast rural areas. Agriculture employs more than half the population, but it accounts for only 15 percent of the economy — and it has grown an average of only about 3 percent in recent years.

Critics say Indian policy makers have failed to follow up on the country’s investments in agricultural technology of the 1960s and ’70s, as they focused on more glamorous, urban industries like information technology, financial services and construction.

There is no agribusiness of the type known in the United States, with highly mechanized farms growing thousands of acres of food crops, because Indian laws and customs bar corporations from farming land directly for food crops. The laws also make it difficult to assemble large land holdings.

Yet even as India’s farming still depends on manual labor and the age-old vicissitudes of nature, demand for food has continued to rise — because of a growing population and rising incomes, especially in the middle and upper classes. As a result, India is importing ever greater amounts of some staples like beans and lentils (up 157 percent from 2004 to 2009) and cooking oil (up 68 percent in the same period).

Food prices are rising faster in India than in almost any other major economy — and faster than they did during the 2007-8 surge.

The whole India-v-China model is a fascinating experiment in Jefferson versus Hamilton, or Gandhi versus Deng.  It's not a state capitalism versus market thing, because the ratios there aren't all that different.  It's really a question of whether you like cities and industry versus villages and agriculture.  

WPR's The New Rules: U.S. Defense Cuts a Step in the Right Direction

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates unveiled his much-anticipated budget cuts last Thursday, signaling the beginning of the end of the decade-long splurge in military spending triggered by Sept. 11. Gates presented the package of cuts as being the biggest possible given the current international security landscape, warning that any deeper reductions could prove "potentially calamitous." Frankly, I find that statement hard to swallow.

REad the entire column at World Politics Review.

Esquire's Politics Blog: Obama's Afghanistan Review, Decoded

So the White House just released its much-anticipated review of our ongoing military efforts in Afghanistan (and Pakistan, mind you). And while President Obama, Bob Gates, and Hillary Clinton took pains to explain in a press conference on Thursday that "this continues to be a very difficult endeavor," it can also be very difficult to parse propaganda from, you know, the actual end of a modern war. But since this is a reasonably well-written document that the president's talking about here — and since it more or less outlines the past, present, and future of our troops' presence in region in a still-untidy five pages — it seems worthwhile to deconstruct the review line-by-line... and (white) lie-by-lie. Here goes.

Read the entire post at Esquire's The Politics Blog.